Why do you believe in aliens UFO's?

I believe there is life elsewhere in the universe, and I see no reason not to believe that some of it may be intelligent. However, whether or not
it's visiting Earth is an entirely different subject to which I don't think there's enough evidence to substantiate.

Intelligence may be an evolutionary dead-end. Of all of our hominid brethren, Homo Sapien Sapiens are the only known survivors. Australopithecus,
Florensis, Habilius, Idaltu, Neanderthal... all gone. Considering the state of technology we have, and are quickly entering into where - as one wise
man put it, "Where anyone will have the capability to kill everyone", it's still yet to be determined whether or not we will prove to be a
successful branch ourselves.

If alien intelligences also evolved elsewhere in the universe, I see no reason why it would not be a similar process to our own evolution - meaning
those aliens would likely have evolved from a social group animal and may still harbor vestiges of their primitive social behaviors. Including,
possibly, territorial and predatorial instincts like us. This would likely expose them to the same dangers of technological advancement as we
currently face, and it's unknown if they could make the transition. Like Michio Kaku has stated, perhaps the reason why we see so little evidence of
type I and above civilizations is because of the inherent danger involved in going from a type 0 to type I civilization... they might not have
survived the transition.

Then, of course, there's the issue of time. We don't know how common intelligent life in the Universe is, and it may be likely that we are the only
current intelligent life within any sort of realistic travel distance - whereas intelligent life may have risen, flourished, and then perished
extremely close to our own planet - but a few hundred thousand to a few million years displaced.

Originally posted by Lasheic
Then, of course, there's the issue of time. We don't know how common intelligent life in the Universe is, and it may be likely that we are the only
current intelligent life within any sort of realistic travel distance - whereas intelligent life may have risen, flourished, and then perished
extremely close to our own planet - but a few hundred thousand to a few million years displaced.

That's a good point. If there's life out there in our own galaxy, it's far away. Of course, you can't make assumptions about travel. I'm not
suggesting one thing or another here, but I would guess that if a thriving, elightened civilization had, say, 10 million years of existance behind
them (which is a drop in the bucket compared to the age of the universe), I bet they could develop some other method for getting around out there that
we couldn't have dreamed of. There's been some really interesting suggestions on what that means of travel might look like, but until they show up
and say hello...

1. In the year 1971 a schoolgirl told me aliens had alighted from an aeroform and spoken to people in Nigeria, and the CIA interviewed the family for
the rest of their lives at regular intervals.

2. In January 1993 a top secret weapons technician told me "I had had to know that Tunguska explosion of 1908 was an incoming extra-terrestrial
craft."

3. Many more human mutes, reminiscent of Linda Moulton Howe's animal mutilation syndrome, have occurred than the authorities want to admit to - that
type of incident is the most violently suppressed, but a BBC TV cameraman filmed two mute cases under tight and aggressive supervision, the blood
drained from the bodies for the aliens to swim in and absorb through their skin.

4. A British pathologist's sister was promoted in Silicon Valley, then soon was on the phone crying to her brother about how violently government
operatives had threatened her upon her having to know they were manufacturing weapons to shoot down extra-terrestrial craft. He then phoned four
American military generals demanding to know if this was true, demanding they answer the most difficult questions he could think of, and only when a
4th general had answered his questions would he believe the Americans are making weapons to shoot down extra-terrestrial craft.

5. Two American servicemen fled Area 51 and hid AWOL in London sqats, telling stories of the violence of the reptilian aliens towards mankind, and of
how terrified they were whilst on duty in Area 51.

6. A former MI5 agent, shouted at by Margaret Thatcher one minute after the Belgrano was sunk during the Falklands War in 1982, stated "I had had to
be told that the USAF Bentwaters incident, that Rendlesham Forest stuff in December 1980, had been an argument between American military generals and
an extra-terrstrial race."

All of these statements have been made confidentially to me, and the variety of those confessions relates to my working in the railways, travelling
for nothing all the time throughout Britain.....you would need a very high income to rival the frequency with which I travel on trains. From that
point of view, I find it very difficult to believe the military haven't made a hellish mess of the question of alien contact. Many "ufologists" are
simply sitting in front of computers hoping it comes across that they sound like they've been doing a lot of travelling around, their version of
"erring on the side of caution" is to immediately diss any ufo/alien contact report, when really, they simply haven't the money to find out. I much
prefer writers who have analysed one single incident extensively, such as Kenn Thomas on the Maury Island Incident, than "ufologists" like Andy
Roberts claiming they've investigated "literally thousands" - a patently obvious impossibility.

Here's a little snippet of info: one of the generals involved in the altercation with alien beings during the 1980 Rendlesham Forest incident,
started crying, had a nervous breakdown during the incident. Georgina Bruni never knew of that fact, it's very very confidential, but it is
nevertheless interesting to read her book about the Rendlesham Forest and bear that little factoid in mind; would like to have spoken to her about
that but she'd died recently. Type Martin_Heth in to Above Top Secret's search engine and look at my responses, they say a few things with varying
degrees of skill.

Because once you realize that they have been monitoring your thoughts, and swoop down from tens of thousands of feet up, down to your position, a
small spec on the side of small beach in a remote part of the world, and hover over you for thirty seconds, and you are hit with some kind of energy
that would be infant in mothers arms times 1000, you just can't go back to not believing.

I still have a hard time fathoming how they can read my thoughts from so far away, and pin point me with such accuracy. I am still coming to terms
with it.

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix
advanced military aircraft technology and weird & rare weather phenomenons going around, why do you believe there are alien UFO's?

Originally posted by martin_heth
3. Many more human mutes, reminiscent of Linda Moulton Howe's animal mutilation syndrome, have occurred than the authorities want to admit to - that
type of incident is the most violently suppressed, but a BBC TV cameraman filmed two mute cases under tight and aggressive supervision, the blood
drained from the bodies for the aliens to swim in and absorb through their skin.

How did they get from one point to the other? I mean draining animals, yes there's lots of that, but how do we know that aliens are doing it so they
can bathe in blood? (As great a horror movie as that makes.)

4. A British pathologist's sister was promoted in Silicon Valley, then soon was on the phone crying to her brother about how violently
government operatives had threatened her upon her having to know they were manufacturing weapons to shoot down extra-terrestrial craft. He then phoned
four American military generals demanding to know if this was true, demanding they answer the most difficult questions he could think of, and only
when a 4th general had answered his questions would he believe the Americans are making weapons to shoot down extra-terrestrial craft.

I don't understan that entire paragraph, or maybe it just doesn't make sense. I know if my brother called four generals to demand the truth about
shooting down extra-terrestrial craft, well, that just sounds so funny. I think you need to rewrite that paragraph and connect those facts more
logically. For example there's no indication of why anybody would be harrassing the woman at all. After awhile I thought ok, perhaps her job was
related in some way, and she must have spoken out or why would they bother her... you get the idea. The item above kind of invalidated some
credibility of the source of the post overall. I mention this to be helpful not to be unkind. I know how easy it is to reference things off the cuff
and not have it come out right.

5. Two American servicemen fled Area 51 and hid AWOL in London sqats, telling stories of the violence of the reptilian aliens towards mankind,
and of how terrified they were whilst on duty in Area 51.

How do we know this kind of thing isn't disinformation?

6. A former MI5 agent, shouted at by Margaret Thatcher one minute after the Belgrano was sunk during the Falklands War in 1982, stated "I had
had to be told that the USAF Bentwaters incident, that Rendlesham Forest stuff in December 1980, had been an argument between American military
generals and an extra-terrstrial race."

How does Thatcher and Falklands relate to this? That part of it just confused me. Is that thrown in to give it credibility somehow? Does it relate in
some way?

1) Because it's entirely possible that the universe you and I occupy is just one of an infinite number of universes.

2) The age of our particular universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years old. Other universes may be far older.

3) Earthlings have gone from horse driven carriages to landing on the moon in less than 100 years. What might an alien civilization thousands or
millions or even billions of years ahead of us have accomplished?

All these things make me think that we couldn't possibly be the only self-aware beings there are in existence. Not to mention the vast and
incredible amount of UFO sightings, abduction cases, trace landing cases and expert witness testimony by unimpeachable sources such as former
astronauts Gordon Cooper & Edgar Mitchell.

Not all UFO's are alien, as Stanton Friedman is fond of saying, but some ARE.

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix
As the title says, why do you believe in alien UFO's?

My opinion.
The reason why I am convinced Aliens exist and are visiting us in what we call UFO’s at a daily base is because of the available evidence for that.
That doesn’t mean that therefore all UFO’s are Alien crafts of course.

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix
With all the space debris floating around, top secret advanced military aircraft technology and weird & rare weather phenomenons going around, why do
you believe there are alien UFO's?

Because the basic source of much of the technology used for our space exploring adventures and therefore the now around floating space debris and much
of that military aircraft technology of where you speak is Alien technology.

Regarding Alien Technology, I just stumbled on this thread here on ATS, it’s quit interesting in my opinion.

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix
IMHO it would be nice to believe that advanced aliens existed and all that, but so far i have never seen any convincing evidence that UFO's have
anything to do with aliens.

If you find the today’s available evidence isn’t convincing enough for you that some of the UFO's has everything to do with Aliens, then that is
entirely up to you of course.

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix
Even if i had a personal experience seeing a UFO for myself, i would likely put it down to something like top secret military stuff or falling space
debris etc.

I wonder if you would still stick by that opinion when it appears that the pilots of that UFO aren’t Human’s.

There are just some people that HAVE to believe in a Superior being.
Whether it's one of the many Gods as depicted in as many religeons or
it's an Alien from outer space. This means they don't accept that this is
all there is to life, and something must be overseeing everything they do,
much like a parent/child.

I do believe there is Life out side our Solar System, but not buzzing
around the planet now or in the past.

I believe in UFOs/extraterrestrial life simply because of the statistical probability that we're not the only intelligent life in the universe. That
and there are just too many unexplained UFO accounts that aren't easily marked up to government work/natural phenomena (STS 80 is a great example).

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
Have you ever been to the top of Everest?
Has anyone ever brought a piece back you could touch? Should we assume the photos, news and stories of the climbers are faked until we have a piece of
the rock in our hands that could be from any mountain?

Anyone whom does some serious study, and is of sufficient intelligence can see there is something going on, and it might not even be of the prosaic
thought forms we Earthlings are able to muster yet. SOMETHING is going on however, despite our best means of understanding the phenomena.

I've seen them several times with unmistakable reality. I practice and are a science educated person. I can believe my eyes, because I engaged my
knowledge and experience when and after observing them.

You don't need to be hit on the head to know a baseball bat is a hard piece of wood.

ZG

Its all about the evidence, the logical argument put forth and the sources of where the evidence comes from and the people putting all this forth.

For example: If David Attenborough came forth saying that he and his team had discovered yeti's living up in the mountains of Tibet or something like
that, and had footage of the yeti and brought back samples of its dung or hair or something like that, i would be quite ready to believe that yeti's
existed.
However, if a pair of guys (who have no credibility) came to the news saying they had amateur footage of a yeti up in the Tibetan mountains and
brought back some so-called yeti hair or poop, i would be very apprehensive to believe that it was the real deal. Hundreds of such people have claimed
such stuff, and whenever yeti "evidence" is brought forth, when tested it always turns out to be goat fur or poop or something like that.

Just because lots of people experience something or take some dodgy photo's or film footage of something, doesn't mean that i'm ready to believe in
it. I am not saying that everyone who comes up with UFO footage or photo's are fakes, i'm sure what they saw definitely exists, but that doesn't
mean that is anything to do with aliens.
The military has a lot of advanced aircraft which look remarkably like UFO's, and i'm sure they have many advanced aircraft that the general public
aren't aware of yet.

Originally posted by Tayesin
Having belief in a thing does not make it real. But, having experience with it does.

Yes and no. If you see something, it exists (although this can sometimes only be on certain levels), but whether it is what you think it is or not is
another question.
What you see can also be distorted by the way your brain interprets it as well.

So basically you believe because of the possibility of existence rather than the evidence of existence, because you can't rule out the possibility of
existence?

Many of us could simply pose your question right back at you;

Why DON'T you believe in 'aliens UFO's' ?

My simple answer to your question is this:

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Most of what I have seen I WILL chalk up to being 'Top Secret' military craft, but that's
why I have an interest in the subject, much like many of the people here. We do understand that the majority of sightings are simply 'Black
Projects', 'Swamp Gas' (

), 'Weather Anomalies' (including all sorts of 'official explanations'), and then we get into the
interesting stuff. That small minority of sightings/reports which have NO EARTHLY EXPLANATION.

We believe because we have a choice to.
You disbelieve because you have made your choice as such.

Who are you to question our motives, anyways?
It's an interesting subject to some (clearly not yourself).

J

1. Firstly, i believe that UFO's can always (sooner or later) be accounted to things that are not alien. To me, its far more likely that a mysterious
craft i see flying in the sky that i have never seen before is something to do with the military rather than to do with aliens visiting this planet.

2. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"- true, but i'm not about to base my opinions on that. With that sort of argument, you
could argue that anything could exist- but i don't really think that is a very progressive outlook to have on everything. There isn't any real
evidence that mermaids exist, but that doesn't mean that they're likely to exist.

3. "That small minority of sightings/reports which have NO EARTHLY EXPLANATION."- Really? How can you be certain that they have no "earthly
explanation"?
Once a time people weren't able to explain why people got sick, they used to think that people got sick because they were sinful or cursed by
witchcraft etc. But that didn't mean that there weren't very real earthly explanations to why people got sick (bacteria, viruses, poor diet etc), it
simply meant back then that people weren't aware of the real explanation to why people got sick, because they were too ignorant on the subject to
know any better.

How can you argue that you are any different trying to explain the unexplained things you have seen, to those people in the past trying to explain the
unexplained things they had to deal with? In such cases, people usually put such things down to witchcraft, magic, spirits or Gods etc. These days
there are still a fair few people who try to explain such things in such ways (although there are much less such people than what there used to be
though), except these days people also add aliens into the mix of explanations.

4. "We believe because we have a choice to.
You disbelieve because you have made your choice as such." That could be said for anything though- it doesn't add any weight to anything.

5. "Who are you to question our motives, anyways?
It's an interesting subject to some (clearly not yourself)." I wouldn't say that. If i wasn't interested in the subject and people's opinions on
it, then i wouldn't have started this thread (and BTW, i have read many interesting & enlightening opinions from people on this subject so far).
Logical really.

Attributing similar accounts from a variety of cultures around the world throughout time to some kind of spontaneous mass conjecture that
coincidentally happens to match, verges on hope so deep it qualifies as religious faith.

Nobody even exposed to that information who doesn't think there is at least a very serious question there about these accounts can be taken seriously
IMO. It does not require any belief system to be logical; one doesn't have to "believe in UFOs" to see an obvious repeating anomaly.

So the question is, is a person simply not self-educated well enough to bother with--they have avoided the evidence so they can say with impunity, 'I
have seen absolutely no evidence to support this claim!'?

Otherwise, then the obvious question about history and present accounts becomes, "Where are they from?" This is not about some distant seemingly
moving light that could be Venus. This is about a worldwide history of other entities, some with flying machines, some with 'other worlds'. Even if
we dismiss all present claims as science-fiction influence, insanity or mind control, we are still left with a historical basis for the same kind of
stuff that cannot be explained away.

It is technically correct that we have no evidence that "UFO's" are from "outer space or other planets."

They could be from inner-space; from other dimensions.

Or, it might turn out as we learn more about physics--and it looks to be going this way--that the idea anybody would fly linearly through time and
space from point A to point C on a planetary scale is unlikely anyway, and there may be technologies that do move people from other planets, but
(a) may do so in a matter of minutes, more like a folding of space-time, and
(b) may also allow travel through time.
Which might make them technically from other planets, and from outer space "as we perceive it", but they may be traveling through a technology that
doesn't have to go through point-B to get here, which means they might as well be next door.

Either of these would make evaluating anything by the light of "dudes got into a nuts&bolts craft and flew here 'all the way from' Sirius'!" just
ridiculous. If that is "the only possible route to getting here" then I would agree it is a bit unlikely if not impossible.

However, given history (leaving out my own experiences for the moment), eventually one has to question, "Who were they? Where were they from? Why
were they here? And if they were visiting here then, where are they now?" and that is where it leads back to the Nuts&Bolts UFOlogy focus.

Regardless of whether one 'believes in' UFOs or Aliens, we have way, way too much documented information about 'unidentified flying or landing
objects' and 'entities, humanoids, or human-seeming beings outside the norm who either come from those craft or appear to be from radically
different places than 'here' as we know it' to not think there's something to study.

It's good to be skeptical. Eventually the most serious, earnest, difficult to please skeptics, if they study UFOlogy-etc., eventually get it. Then
they freak out for awhile. But that's another story lol. The bottom line is that serious skepticism combined with earnest study of the subject leads
to a radical change of mind in all I've seen.

So generally if someone is still having a psychological problem with the subject, it tells me that either
(a) it's an issue of their psychology [fear, generally], or
(b) they really just haven't studied the subject enough to know.

1. Firstly, i believe that UFO's can always (sooner or later) be accounted to things that are not alien. To me, its far more likely that a
mysterious craft i see flying in the sky that i have never seen before is something to do with the military rather than to do with aliens visiting
this planet.

Why would you jump to that conclusion? And this imo, is where the rubber meets the road on this subject. Discounting blips of light, moving objects
that are mere dots that we can't identify, there are plenty of solid cases where a very definable craft is seen.

If you think these are all military, then you must believe we have technology far beyond anything made public or used in our wars. I think the most
important sightings are very large object that make no noise, and hover in place, then accelerating at a high rate of speed. There are plenty of
these reports. As much as people would like to think we have this technology, I don't think we are even remotely close to having anything like
this.

The larger the craft, the more powerful the "engine" to make the thing stay in the air. The larger the engine, the louder it is. Even "stealth"
craft are very noisy. When reports are made of objets that are huge in size, 3, 5 or even 20 times the size of a jumbo jet, I don't think we are
remotely close to having this technology.

And if we DID have this sort of stuff, it would be astounding, and of course, very secret, and we certainly wouldn't be flying it around major
cities, where many of these sightings occur.

But this is nothing new. Back when we were just flirting with jet technology, there were reported cases of jets CHASING objects that cannot catch up
with. They are not military. Our military was chasing them! They were caught on radar, seen by ground and air witnesses, and we had nothing out
that could even begin to match those speeds.

Many of these sightings are in other countries. Why would any military test their super-secret, high tech gadgetry over foreign soil? They
wouldn't. And keep in mind there are very few countries that have the budget to even work on such black projects.

From the more recent sightings in Stephensville, to the older case in Indiana, there are constantly sightings that imo, cannot be passed off as
military. That's an easy out and a cop out for debunkers. I don't doubt we are testing some pretty cool stuff out, but I don't think it comes
close to the capabilities of what we've seen so far in the skies. And we certainly wouldn't be flying them over rural neighborhood, that's
ludicrous.

Also consider sightings like the one in Phoenix and again in Indiana, the very large, silent craft seen flying were seen in multiple counties and
cities. And by cops (the ones in Indiana were calling each other back and forth about theirs, following it from county to county), teachers, pilots,
and other very respectable sources. Why would the military not only fly a super secret object over a city.. but over MANY cities over a period of
time of even HOURS? It makes no sense.

Even back in LA for the infamous attempt to blow up an object in the sky... again, nothing makes sense if it was ours. The only feeble explantions I
get were things like our trained military personnel were shooting at a CLOUD for almost an hour. It was NOT military, no military had a craft that
could sustain that sort of firepower. If they had, they'd certainly be in mass production. You'd win the war easily with that sort of impregnable
aircraft.

It only takes ONE case imo to prove something is going on. Just one. If you have something that is clearly NOT military, and it's not a natural
effect there are very few explanations left. It's clearly not civilian, it's obviously constructs, ergo, it's not 'from these parts.'

Governments are pretty much admitting this as well. When the head of a countries air force as it were, says "these cases here, we have no idea what
these are..." that pretty much rules out military crafts. They would know. If it were a 'secret' military project, they'd never release the ufo
case in the first place.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.